Anti-Trinitarians falsely portray Constantine as a pagan sun worshipper who had no faith in Christ and was practically the sole author of the Nicene creed. They paint the Nicene council as being run by a pagan with "no understanding" of Christian doctrine and then imply that Constantine drafted the final Nicene text and used his power to banish only those who opposed. These are all lies and deliberate misrepresentations of history!

In this document:

Constantine's Anti-Pagan stance as good as any "good" Old Testament King of JudahConstantine's Anti-Pagan stance as good as any "good" Old Testament King of JudahConstantine's Conversion and Genuineness of FaithThe fact that Constantine murdered his son is no proof that Constantine was not a Christian.Constantine's had a good knowledge of Doctrine Where did the key Nicene term "homoousios" (of one substance) come from? Ossius' influence on ConstantineOpposition to the Nicene creedNicea opposition same as we see in LutherConstantine's role as a Godly peacemakerConstantine's impartiality in dealing with Arius and AthanasiusConstantius (Constantine's son) exiled and crushed by force, the Trinitarians Arius triumphed for 50 years after Nicea, then was defeated till the 19th century.

Lies vs. Facts on the life of Constantine:

How Anti-trinitarians misrepresent facts of history

True facts of history

Constantine was a pagan who worshipped the sun until just before he died.

The fact is that Constantine stopped worshipping the sun at his conversion many years before Nicea.

Constantine's anti-Pagan stance as good as any "good" Old Testament King of Judah. He took major steps to rid his land of paganism.

Constantine's conversion to Christianity was nothing more than a political move and was not genuine as evidenced by the fact he was not baptized until just before his death.

The facts of Constantine's life refute this silly unscholarly notion. His anti-Pagan stance as good as any "good" Old Testament King of Judah.

It was the practice of the day to delay one's baptism until just before death. In other words, it was typical of Christianity of the day, to do what Constantine did. He was the norm, not the exception.

Constantine had no knowledge of Christian doctrine.

Constantine was personally involved in the "Donatus" controversy in 313 AD, 12 years before Nicea! The council of Nicea was Constantine's, second major involvement in doctrinal disputes.

Constantine was preaching sermons on a regular basis.

We know for a fact, from letters Constantine wrote to "imperial officials and to Christian clergy" that he had open and clear views of Christian doctrine of good general knowledge.

Constantine, (a pagan sun worshipper who knew nothing about Christian Doctrine) was the author of the Nicene creed.

This is the impression anti-Trinitarians leave in the mind of readers.

Although Constantine did put forth the Nicene creed term "homoousios" (of one substance), it is universally recognized that Ossius (a bishop and Constantine's spiritual adviser) was the one who told Constantine to suggest the term be in the creed.

Anti-Trinitarians irresponsibly portray Constantine as a faithless sun-god pagan idol worshipper with no understanding of Christianity who single-handedly introduces trinity to Christianity from the pagans and is almost the author of the Nicene creed.

Constantine was introduced to the trinity debates which existed before he became emperor.

Constantine had no role in shaping trinity doctrine.

To suggest that Constantine introduced trinity doctrine from pagan sources is as preposterous as it is false.

The majority opposed the Nicene creed because they viewed Jesus as a creature, not God.

We will grant, for argument sake that a majority opposed the Nicene creed. But the opposition was over the use of specific words that could be misunderstood, not the deity of Christ. (Even though the deity of Christ was the main purpose of the council)

The opposition was also from those who "misunderstood" what the creed was saying. In other words, they felt the creed could lend support to Sabellianism (modalism, as taught today by the United Pentecostal church UPCI) of which they were equally opposed, when in fact it did not! But again, although opposed to the creed, did not view Jesus as a creature.

You will notice that only a few bishops from the west (Ossius: Alexandrian party) were present and most of the bishops were from the east (Oregonian theology), but neither viewed Jesus as a creature! In addition to this there were a small number aligned with Arius who openly stated Jesus was a creature!

The majority who opposed the creed were not aligned with Arius! The "majority who disliked" firmly believed that Jesus was God, they didn't like the Greek terms used to describe Jesus deity, not that they rejected the deity itself!

When Frend says "The great majority of the Eastern bishops found themselves in a false position" he tells us what that position is: "The great majority of the Eastern clergy were ultimately disciples of Origen. Future generations have tended to dub them "Semi-Arian." In fact they were simply concerned with maintaining the traditional Logos-theology of the Greek-speaking Church"

"The Church had to face up to the Arian question and go on record for or against the Arian answer. It did this at Nicea. Though there may be doubt about the understanding of 'consubstantial' at Nicea, there can be no doubt about the historical and dogmatic importance of the Council itself. For there the Church definitively rejected the answer that Arius gave to the question he put: Is the Son God or creature? The Council firmly rejected Arius' contention that the Son was a creature, not eternal, and made out of nothing." (The Triune God, Edmund J. Fortman, p 66-70)

Constantine favoured Athanasius over Arius in the Nicene council.

The fact that Athanasius, who was in agreement with the creed, was personally banished by Constantine, should dispel that notion.

Constantine was quite impartial, but wanted peace. He was a peacemaker!

Even if this was true, Constantine's son showed "equal bias" towards Arius for 50 years, yet in the end, Arius was refuted!

Detailed documentation:

When Constantine came upon the temple mount in Jerusalem, he destroyed the temple of Jupiter that had been built in 135 AD by Hadrian. In building the "Church of the Holy Sepulchre" in 325 AD, Eusebius records how Constantine even removed the soil on the site and dumped it far away. Hadrian had built a temple to Venus on the site and Constantine destroyed and removed every trace of this pagan idolatry. This evidence proves that Jehovah's Witnesses deliberately misrepresent Constantine as a pagan. Eusebius wrote in 325 AD: "How Constantine Commanded the Materials of the Idol Temple, and the Soil Itself, to Be Removed at a Distance: Nor did the emperor's zeal stop here; but he gave further orders that the materials of what was thus destroyed, both stone and timber, should be removed and thrown as far from the spot as possible; and this command also was speedily executed. The emperor, however, was not satisfied with having proceeded thus far: once more, fired with holy ardor, he directed that the ground itself should be dug up to a considerable depth, and the soil which had been polluted by the foul impurities of demon worship transported to a far distant place." (Eusebius , The Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine, book 3, ch 27)

Constantine's Anti-Pagan stance as good as any "good" Old Testament King of Judah

It is significant, for instance, not that the pagan gods and their legends survived for a few years on Constantine's coinage but that they disappeared so quickly: the last of them, the relatively inoffensive "Unconquered Sun" had been eliminated within little over a decade after the defeat of Maxentius (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)

Nor was the visit to Rome a success. Constantine's refusal to take part in a pagan procession offended the Romans; and when he left after a short visit, it was never to return. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)

the accusation that his [Constantine's] generosity was only made possible by his looting of the treasures of the pagan temples (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)

He showed marked favour to Christians, thereby causing a flood of interested conversions. At the same time his attitude to his pagan subjects became more severe. Shortly after his victory over Licinius be issued an edict urging all his subjects to adopt the Christian faith, but at the same time he confirmed his policy of toleration to paganism (although in contemptuous language) and forbade overzealous Christians to disturb the pagan cult. He nevertheless destroyed three famous temples, at Aegae in Cilicia and at Apheca and Heliopolis in Phoenicia, and in 331 confiscated all the temple treasures, even stripping the cult statues of their gold; he probably also seized the temple endowments. Before the end of his reign he may even have banned sacrifice." (Encyclopædia Britannica, 1971, Constantine, Vol. 6, p. 386)

Constantine's Conversion and Genuineness of Faith

Assessment. The reign of Constantine must be interpreted against the background of his clear and unambiguous personal commitment to Christianity. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)

Such pronouncements, expressed in letters to imperial officials and to Christian clergy, make untenable the view that Constantine's religious attitudes were even in these early years either veiled, confused, or compromised. Openly expressed, his attitudes show a clear commitment. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)

It is significant, for instance, not that the pagan gods and their legends survived for a few years on Constantine's coinage but that they disappeared so quickly: the last of them, the relatively inoffensive "Unconquered Sun" had been eliminated within little over a decade after the defeat of Maxentius (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)

Constantine the Great: later in life he was in the habit of delivering edifying sermons ... It is even possible that members of Constantine's family were Christians. Constantine himself was said to have converted his mother ... Throughout his life, Constantine ascribed his success to his conversion to Christianity and the support of the Christian God. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)

Yet to suggest that Constantine's conversion was "politically motivated" means little in an age in which every Greek or Roman expected that political success followed from religious piety. ... What is far more remarkable is Constantine's subsequent development of his new religious allegiance to a quite extreme personal commitment. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)

Commitment to Christianity. ... As he said in a letter of, 313 to the proconsul of Africa, the Christian clergy should not be distracted by secular offices from their religious duties " ... Constantine's personal "theology" emerges with particular clarity from a remarkable series of letters, extending from 313 to the early 320s, concerning the Donatist schism in North Africa. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)

The reasons for Constantine's conversion to Christianity have been much debated. Some believe that it was an astute stroke of policy, designed to win the support of the Christians, or a wise act of statesmanship aimed at buttressing the decaying fabric of the empire with the strength of the Christian church. Neither view is very likely (Encyclopædia Britannica, 1971, Constantine, Vol. 6, p. 386)

Nor was the visit to Rome a success. Constantine's refusal to take part in a pagan procession offended the Romans; and when he left after a short visit, it was never to return. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)

The Emperor was always an earnest student of his religion and spent hours discussing it with bishops. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)

He composed a special prayer for his troops and went on campaign equipped with a mobile chapel in a tent. He issued numerous laws relating to Christian practice and susceptibilities: for instance, abolishing the penalty of crucifixion and the practice of branding certain criminals, "so as not to disfigure the human face, which is formed in the image of divine beauty"; enjoining the observance of Sunday and saints' days; extending privileges to the clergy while suppressing at least some of the more offensive pagan practices. Constantine had hoped to be baptized in the River Jordan, but perhaps because of the lack of opportunity to do so together no doubt with the reflection that his office necessarily involved responsibility for actions hardly compatible with the baptized state delayed the ceremony until the end of his life. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)

During the decade following his conversion Constantine's legislation shows many signs of Christian influence. For example, he repealed the legislation of Augustus that penalized celibates, legalized bequests to the church and gave full validity to manumission performed in a church. He even gave powers of jurisdiction to bishops, allowing either party to transfer a suit to the cognizance of a bishop, whose verdict should be final and executed by the civil authority. He also made Sunday a public holiday according to Christian practice (Encyclopædia Britannica, 1971, Constantine, Vol. 6, p. 386)

Yet this was less an expression of religious megalomania than of Constantine's literal conviction that he was, in a quite precise sense, the successor of the evangelists, having devoted his life and office to the spreading of Christianity. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)

In later years, he wrote to Eusebius to commission new copies of the Bible for the use of the growing congregations at Constantinople. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)

It was his [Constantine's] personal choice made in 312 that determined the emergence of the Roman Empire as a Christian state. It is not hard to see why Eusebius regarded his reign as the fulfillment of divine providence nor to concede the force of Constantine's assessment of his own role as that of the thirteenth Apostle. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)

"When he [Constantius] died at York on 25 July 305 the soldiers proclaimed his son Constantine as emperor.

Constantine, like his father, worshipped the Unconquered Sun; But there was Christian influence in his houselhold since he had a half-sister named Anastasia (anastasis = resurrection). At the crisis of his career in the war of 312 to gain sole power in the West, Constantine invoked the might aid of the Christian God and was not disappointed. His rise to power in 306 AD made it certain that persecution would not affect provinces under his control. [page 122]... "The conversion of Constantine marks a turning-point in the history of the Church and of Europe." ... "But if his conversion should not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace, neither was it a cynical act of Machiavellian cunning. It was a military matter. His comprehension of Christian doctrine was never very clear, but he was sure that victory in battle lay in the gift of the God of the Christians....He was not baptized until he lay dying in 337, but this implies no doubt about his Christian belief. It was common at this time (and continued so until about A.D. 400) to postpone baptism to the end of one's life, especially if one's duty as an official included torture and execution of criminals. Part of the reason for postponement lay in the seriousness with which the responsibilities of baptism were taken. Constantine favoured Christianity among the many religions of his subjects, but did not make it the official or 'established' religion of the empire." (The Early Church, Chadwick, Henry. p 122,125,127)

The fact that Constantine murdered his son is no proof that Constantine was not a Christian.

We are not told why Constantine murdered his son. Anti-Trinitarians are basically trying to trash the genuineness of Constantine's Christianity and his involvement in the Nicene creed. Britannica notes Constantine putting his son to death, but says it was for reasons unknown. What if his son committed murder himself, and Constantine, just like the USA today, executed him, being head of state! The fact that Constantine killed his own son, could be taken, should the facts ever be known, as a sign of his impartial intolerance of sin even in his own family! In this case the murder of his son could be viewed as an act of righteous faith!

Constantine's had a good knowledge of Doctrine

Constantine was soon involved in ecclesiastical controversy, in particular that associated with Donatus. In 313 a group of African bishops led by Majorinus, who claimed to be bishop of Carthage, submitted to him charges against Caecilian, the rival bishop of Carthage, and asked him to appoint judges to decide the dispute. Constantine was already aware of the schism and on the suggestion of his ecclesiastical adviser, Ossius, bishop of Cordoba (Encyclopædia Britannica, 1971, Constantine, Vol. 6, p. 386)

Constantine's second involvement in an ecclesiastical issue followed the defeat of Licinius as promptly as the involvement in Donatism followed that of Maxentius; but the Arian heresy, with its intricate explorations, couched in difficult Greek, of the precise nature of the Trinity, was as remote from Constantine's educational background as it was from his impatient, urgent temperament. The Council of Nicaea, which opened in May 325 with an address by the Emperor, had already been preceded by a letter to the chief protagonist, Arius of Alexandria, in which Constantine stated his opinion that the dispute was fostered only by excessive leisure and academic contention, that the point at issue was trivial and could be resolved without difficulty. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)

Not understanding the theological points at issue Constantine first sent a letter to the two parties rebuking them for quarreling about minute distinctions, as he believed them to be, about the nature of Christ (Encyclopædia Britannica, 1971, Constantine, Vol. 6, p. 386)

Constantine had a good understanding of Christianity. What Lohse means and Britannica confirms: "the Arian heresy, with its intricate explorations, couched in difficult Greek, of the precise nature of the Trinity, was as remote from Constantine's educational background as it was from his impatient, urgent temperament. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71) is that the arguments between the Trinitarians and the Arians in council of Nicea, were based on complex etymology (precise Greek word definitions etc).

Let me illustrate: How many English speaking Jehovah's Witnesses living in North America today could immediately identify and define complex sentence structure in English. (noun, verb, adverb, predicate, subject, past-participle, pronoun.) If we started arguing some doctrinal point because the of the nature of the past-participle in the English Bible, it could be truthfully said: "Jehovah's Witnesses

have basically no understanding whatsoever of the questions that were being asked in English theology".

Now true, Constantine had also not grappled with the concepts of the Trinity discussion. But again the same is true of 99% of Jehovah's Witnesses. If this author, for example, had a private audience with 100 different Jw's, they would walk away saying of themselves, "I don't understand the subject". Whereas there are a tiny number of Jw's who do understand Trinity doctrine who would be able to argue in an intelligent manner (unsuccessfully none the less).

"

Apparently a fairly large percentage of the delegates were not theologically trained, but among those who were, three basic "parties" were discernible: Arius and the Lucianists, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia; the Origenists, led by Eusebius of Caesarea, already highly reputed; and Alexander of Alexandria, with his following." (God in Three Persons, Millard J. Erickson, p82-85)

Where did the key Nicene term "homoousios" (of one substance) come from?

Ossius' influence on Constantine

Those of the party of Alexander, however, were not fully satisfied. They were favored by the emperor, and followed the strategy of accepting the Creed of Caesarea while demanding a more precise definition of some of its key terms. The emperor favored the inclusion of the word homoousios, as suggested to him by Hosius. (God in Three Persons, Millard J. Erickson, p82-85)

The emperor at first gave the council a free hand, but was prepared to step in if necessary to enforce the formula that his advisor Hosius had agreed on with Alexander of Alexandria. (God in Three Persons, Millard J. Erickson, p82-85)

Constantine was already aware of the schism and on the suggestion of his ecclesiastical adviser, Ossius, bishop of Cordoba (Encyclopædia Britannica, 1971, Constantine, Vol. 6, p. 386)

Constantine was convinced, doubtless by Ossius, that dissension in his church was deeply displeasing to God. (Encyclopædia Britannica, 1971, Constantine, Vol. 6, p. 386)

The Council of Nicaea met on May 20, 325. Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed, no doubt on Ossius' prompting, the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, "of one substance with the Father" (Encyclopædia Britannica, 1971, Constantine, Vol. 6, p. 386)

The first emperor to become a Christian

, Constantine had basically no understanding whatsoever of the questions that were being asked in Greek theology. ... Even though he had a general antipathy to the controversies, and even though he himself had only a rudimentary "theology," he was still not entirely without sympathy for the problems which arose. In any case, he permitted himself to be more fully instructed about many things by his episcopal counselors. The decisive catchword of the Nicene confession, namely, homoousios ("of one substance"), comes from no less a person than the emperor himself. To the present day no one has cleared up the problem of where the emperor got the term. It seems likely that it was suggested to him by his episcopal counselor, Bishop Hosius (Ossius) of Cordova, and it was probably nothing more than a Greek translation of a term already found in Tertullian (A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Bernard Lohse, 1966, p51-53)

Opposition to the Nicene creed

The issue before the council, it is virtually universally agreed, was not the unity of the Godhead but rather the coeternity of the Son with the Father, and his full divinity, as contrasted with the creaturehood that the Arians attributed to him. (God in Three Persons, Millard J. Erickson, p82-85)

Attempts to overthrow the Nicene Formulas: The decisions of Nicaea were really the work of a minority, and

they were misunderstood and disliked by many who were not adherents of Arius. In particular the terms [Greek] aroused opposition, on the grounds that they were unscriptural, novel, tending to Sabellianism (taking [Greek] in the sense of particular reality and erroneous metaphysically. Athanasius was twice exiled, and when ninety bishops assembled at Antioch for the dedication of Constantine's 'Golden Church' a council was held and a 'Creed of the Dedication' put forward as a substitute for that of Nicaea, in spite of, or perhaps because of, a letter from Pope Julius urging Athanasius' restoration. (Documents of the Christian Church, Henry Bettenson, 2nd Ed 1963, p 41)

In June 325 a general council met at Nicea. The number of bishops was apparently somewhere between 250 and 300.

The most important of the Eastern bishops were present, but the West was poorly represented; the bishop of Rome did not attend but sent two presbyters in his place. (God in Three Persons, Millard J. Erickson, p82-85)

In 325 a Council was convoked by Constantine the emperor at Nicea in Bithynia.

The names of over 220 of those in attendance known. Most of these came from the East. Five or six came from the West, among these Hosius of Cordova and the priests Vitus and Vincent, who represented Pope Sylvester. (The Triune God, Edmund J. Fortman, p 66-70)

Apparently a fairly large percentage of the delegates were not theologically trained, but among those who were, three basic "parties" were discernible: Arius and the Lucianists, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia; the Origenists, led by Eusebius of Caesarea, already highly reputed; and Alexander of Alexandria, with his following. (God in Three Persons, Millard J. Erickson, p82-85)

Most of the bishops who were present at the council signed this creed. Among the signers were those who, judging by their theological presuppositions, could not do so, or could hardly do so, such as Eusebius of Caesarea. What seemed especially objectionable to many bishops and theologians of the East was the concept put into the creed by Constantine himself, the homoousios, which in the subsequent strife between orthodoxy and heresy became the object of dissension. Even most of the Arians put their names to the creed. Only Arius and two of his friends refused to sign, for which they were excommunicated." (A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Bernard Lohse, 1966, p51-53)

The statement is significant both for what it affirmed and what it denied. The word homoousios, which was to carry such great significance in the years ahead, is especially interesting. There was some suspicion of this word on the part of the orthodox because of its earlier association with Gnosticism and even Manicheism. Even its defenders experienced some embarrassment about this term because of its identification with the condemned ideas of Paul of Samosata. This term, however, upon which Constantine insisted, was given a special turn of meaning here. What was being affirmed and insisted upon was that the Son is different, utterly different, from any of the created beings. He is not out of any other substance, but out of the Father. The condemnations attached to the confession also spoke very emphatically to the Arian position, specifically rejecting its major affirmations. Arius refused to sign this statement and was apparently joined by only two other members of the council. The rest, including those supposedly supportive of Arius's position, signed the creed. It is generally agreed that this was a triumph for the views of Alexander, and that the primary architect of it was Athanasius, strongly supported by Amphilocius and Didymus in the East and Ambrose and Hilary in the West. (God in Three Persons, Millard J. Erickson, p82-85)

The Church had to face up to the Arian question and go on record for or against the Arian answer. It did this at Nicea. Though there may be doubt about the understanding of 'consubstantial' at Nicea, there can be no doubt about the historical and dogmatic importance of the Council itself. For there the Church definitively rejected the answer that Arius gave to the question he put: Is the Son God or creature? The Council firmly rejected Arius' contention that the Son was a creature, not eternal, and made out of nothing. (The Triune God, Edmund J. Fortman, p 66-70)

Nicea opposition same as we see in Luther

Luther was uneasy with the term trinity, not the idea of Trinity, for Luther most certainly always was a trinitarian.

Luther did not disagree with the Trinity, but was afraid of the words, or theological terminology such as the Latin word "person" (persona), which might imply tritheism instead of trinity.

Luther's hesitation is exactly that of many who signed the Nicene creed. It was not that they questioned if Jesus was a creature, but that they felt the

words used to convey the ontological relationship between God and Jesus were inadequate.

"

On the words persona, (etc. ). . . . Much has been said, about the time of the Reformation, concerning the tendency of these terms to lead to tritheism; and among the advocates for their expulsion from theological disquisition, might be mentioned a number of the first divines of the age, not excepting Minnius and even Luther himself.--Yet, to prevent the charge of Arianism or Socinianism, which he knew his enemies would eagerly seize the least pretext to prefer against them, Luther yielded to Melanchthon's wishes, and in the Augsburg Confession, the doctrine of the Trinity is couched in the old scholastic terms. (G. C. Storr & Flatt's , Biblical Theology. S. S. Schmucker, trans., p. 301)

Schism, in Constantine's view, was "insane, futile madness," inspired by the Devil, the author of evil. Its partisans were acting in defiance of the clemency of Christ, for which they might expect eternal damnation at the Last Judgment (this was a Judgment whose rigours Constantine equally anticipated for himself). (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)

Constantine's impartiality in dealing with Arius and Athanasius

At last, in 335, Constantine summoned a council of bishops at Tyre to investigate various charges against Athanasius and ordered him to appear. The council condemned him; he appealed to Constantine himself, who banished him to Gaul. (Encyclopædia Britannica, 1971, Constantine, Vol. 6, p. 386)

Constantius (Constantine's son) exiled and crushed by force, the Trinitarians

In 350 Constantius became sole ruler of the empire, and under his leadership the Nicene party (orthodox Christians) was largely crushed. The extreme Arians then declared that the Son was "unlike" (anomoios) the Father. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Arianism, Vol. I, p.509)

Arius triumphed for 50 years after Nicea, then was defeated till the 19th century.

"Politics and Theology:

In 337, Constantine died and his three sons inherited the empire. Constantine II received the far western part: Britain, Gaul, and Spain. Constantius received the far eastern part: Macedonia, Greece, Thrace, Asia Minor, Palestine, Syria, and Egypt. Constans received the area lying in between:, Italy, North Africa, and Illyricum. Both Constantine II and Constans took the western position and supported Athanasius. Constantius supported the Arians. In 340, Constantine II was killed in battle with the forces of Constans, leaving the empire divided between Constans in the West and Constantius in the East. In 350, Constans was assassinated by the rebel German emperor Magnentius. Three years later Constantius defeated and killed the latter. Thus, by 353 the entire empire was in the hands of power of the empire, Constantius decided that the religious question should now be decided once and for all. In councils held in the West at Arles and Milan, he forced the western bishops to abandon Athanasius, and he exiled some of their leaders. In 357 a council held in Sirmium in Illyria forbade the use of ousia (nature) in speaking of the relationship between the Father and the Son. With this the homoousios of Nicaea became a dead confession. This was a complete victory [for the Arians]." (A Short History of the Early Church, Harry R. Boer, p117)

Other texts of interest:

"The Nicene Solution:

In June 325 a general council met at Nicea. The number of bishops was apparently somewhere between 250 and 300. The most important of the Eastern bishops were present, but the West was poorly represented; the bishop of Rome did not attend but sent two presbyters in his place. The emperor at first gave the council a free hand, but was prepared to step in if necessary to enforce the formula that his advisor Hosius had agreed on with Alexander of Alexandria. Apparently a fairly large percentage of the delegates were not theologically trained, but among those who were, three basic "parties" were discernible: Arius and the Lucianists, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia; the Origenists, led by Eusebius of Caesarea, already highly reputed; and Alexander of Alexandria, with his following. The Lucianists, who fully expected to prevail, without previously conferring with the Origenists, put forth a rather blunt statement of their beliefs. To their considerable surprise, this was summarily rejected. It was then their hope that the Eusebian position, which was something of a midpoint between the Arian and the Alexandrian parties, would prevail. Indeed, Eusebius put forth a creed, which was unanimously pronounced to be orthodox by those present. Those of the party of Alexander, however, were not fully satisfied. They were favored by the emperor, and followed the strategy of accepting the Creed of Caesarea while demanding a more precise definition of some of its key terms. The emperor favored the inclusion of the word homoousios, as suggested to him by Hosius. The Alexandrian party then presented a carefully worked out statement, which they said was a revised form of the Creed of Caesarea, with certain steps taken to close loopholes that could be interpreted in Arian fashion. The Origenists had considerable reservation about some elements of the creed, fearing that phrases such as "out of the Father's substance" and "of the same substance as the Father" could be interpreted in a material sense, could be understood as Sabellian, and were not of biblical origin. The emperor exerted considerable influence, saying that there was a desire to preserve the spirituality of the Godhead. Consequently, the statement was approved by all except three members of the council. Even most of Arius's allies abandoned him, and as Pelikan says, "saluted the emperor, signed the formula, and went right on teaching as they always had." The creed read as follows: We believe in one God, the FATHER Almighty, Maker of all things, visible and invisible; And in one Lord JESUS CHRIST, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, [the only-begotten, that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (homoousios) with the Father; by whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; who for us men, and for our salvation came down and was incarnate and became man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from whence he will come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the HOLY GHOST. [But for those who say: "There was a time when he was not"; and, "He was not before he was made"; and "He was made out of nothing," or "He is of another substance" or "essence," or "The Son of God is created," or "changeable," or "alterable"-they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church .] The statement is significant both for what it affirmed and what it denied. The word homoousios, which was to carry such great significance in the years ahead, is especially interesting. There was some suspicion of this word on the part of the orthodox because of its earlier association with Gnosticism and even Manicheism. Even its defenders experienced some embarrassment about this term because of its identification with the condemned ideas of Paul of Samosata. This term, however, upon which Constantine insisted, was given a special turn of meaning here. What was being affirmed and insisted upon was that the Son is different, utterly different, from any of the created beings. He is not out of any other substance, but out of the Father. The condemnations attached to the confession also spoke very emphatically to the Arian position, specifically rejecting its major affirmations. Arius refused to sign this statement and was apparently joined by only two other members of the council. The rest, including those supposedly supportive of Arius's position, signed the creed. It is generally agreed that this was a triumph for the views of Alexander, and that the primary architect of it was Athanasius, strongly supported by Amphilocius and Didymus in the East and Ambrose and Hilary in the West. One question that then must be raised, however, pertains to just what the council meant by this statement. On the one hand, the usual meaning of the word homoousios, as used by Origen, for example, was generic, namely, "of the same nature." In that sense, it could signify the kind of substance or stuff common to several individuals of a class, as would be true of a collection of humans, for example. On the other hand, it could connote an individual thing as such. While a large number of scholars have contended that the council used the term in this latter sense, there are good grounds for questioning such a conclusion. Both J. N. D. Kelly and G. L. Prestige argue that whether that is properly the terms meaning, it was this more modest version that they had in mind. Among their reasons are the fact that Arius, prior to the council, objected to the term homoousious, but it is apparent that he was repudiating the Son's alleged divinity, rather than the unity of God. Further, the issue before the council, it is virtually universally agreed, was not the unity of the Godhead but rather the coeternity of the Son with the Father, and his full divinity, as contrasted with the creaturehood that the Arians attributed to him. In addition' if Eusebius and his allies had thought that homoousios was being used to teach the doctrine of numerical unity of substance, they would have seen this as a concession to Sabellianism and would have vigorously resisted it. Finally, we know that later the most orthodox theologians continued to use the term in the sense of generic unity." (God in Three Persons, Millard J. Erickson, p82-85)

"THE COUNCIL OF NICEA: In 325 a Council was convoked by Constantine the emperor at Nicea in Bithynia. The names of over 220 of those in attendance known. Most of these came from the East. Five or six came from the West, among these Hosius of Cordova and the priests Vitus and Vincent, who represented Pope Sylvester. There is no record of the acts of the Council. Only its Creed, 20 canons, and a synodal letter condemning Arius are extant (Denz 125-130). The Nicene Creed says simply: We believe in one God, the Father almighty, creator of all things both visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten born of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father; God from God, light from light, true God from true God; begotten, not created, consubstantial with the Father; through Him all things were made, those in heaven and those on earth as well.... And we believe in the Holy Spirit. As for those who say: 'There was a time when He did not exist' and 'before He was begotten, He did not exist' and 'He was made from nothing, or from another hypostasis or essence,' alleging that the Son of God is mutable or subject to change such persons the Catholic and apostolic Church condemns (Denz 125-126). What the Creed rejected is clear enough. It was Arius' doctrine that the Son is not true God but a creature, that He was not begotten of the substance of the Father but was made from nothing, that He was not eternal but rather that 'there was a time when He did not exist.' What was affirmed was a belief in one God, the Father almighty, creator of all things; and in one Lord Jesus Christ. through whom all things were made and who is the Son of God, the only-begotten of the Father, born of the substance of the Father. true God from true God, begotten not created, consubstantial with the Father; and in the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is merely mentioned together with the Son and the Father, to indicate belief in the Triad of Father and Son and Holy Spirit, but He is given no further attention. All the conciliar stress was on the Son, His status, and His relation to the Father. Somewhat surprisingly the Council still used the words ousia and hypostasis as synonyms. Several points stand out. The Council Fathers did not use the term Logos for Christ but the more evangelical word Son. They stressed that He was not created but begotten, not made from nothing but born from the substance of the Father, thus indicating that His was not a metaphorical or adoptive sonship but a real, metaphysical sonship that entailed consubstantiality or community of divine nature between the Father and the Son. They emphasized His divinity by saying He was not only born of the Father and not created but also was eternal and was God from God, true God from true God. But the word that has continued to stand out most of all is the word consubstantial or homoousios. What does it mean in the Nicene Creed? Before Nicea it generally meant 'of generically the same substance. For later Catholic theologians it means 'of identically the same substance.' For a long time it had been widely assumed that the specific teaching of Nicea was that the Son as consubstantial with the Father had identically the same substance as the Father, and that the Council had thus taught not only the divinity of the Son but also His numerical identity of substance with the Father. But in recent years there has developed a growing tendency to question and reject this assumption. It is clear that the Council did not explicitly affirm that the Son was 'consubstantial with the Father' had the one same identical divine substance as the Father, and hence this was not its specific or formal teaching. But when it said the Son was 'consubstantial with the Father,' it meant at least that He is 'utterly like the Father in substance,' 'utterly unlike creatures in substance,' that He is 'of the Father's substance' and 'of no other substance."" But if the Council did not explicitly affirm numerical consubstantiality of Son and Father, was the idea of numerical consubstantiality prominent in the minds of the Nicene Fathers? Today there is a tendency to doubt or deny this also, and for a variety of reasons . It is urged that if the word consubstantial up to Nicea had only meant generic identity or likeness of substance, it would not suddenly be accepted as meaning numerical identity of substance. and if it had been so understood then the Eusebians would have cried out 'Sabellanism.' Further, it is argued that since the great issue at Nicea was the Son's full divinity and coeternity and not the unity of the Godhead, the word consubstantial would have been understood to signify the Son's full divinity, His total likeness in substance to the Father and total unlikeness to creatures in substance. It is pointed out also that later on when the numerical identity of substance was fully acknowledged, some orthodox theologians still used the word consubstantial in the sense of generic unity. All this seems to make an impressive case for the view that the Nicene Fathers generally understood 'consubstantiality' as likeness in substance. But perhaps an even stronger case can be made for the traditional view that they understood consubstantiality as identity of substance. Could they have failed to realize that if the Son was 'of the Father's substance,' then He must be like the Father in substance? Why, then, would they add consubstantial if it merely meant 'like the Father in substance'? Again, it would seem to be unnatural" for monotheists to admit two divine ousiai. And yet the Fathers must have realized that they would be doing just that if they said the Son was only 'like the Father in ousia.' Further, why is it logical to say that the Fathers used 'consubstantial' in its Origenist sense of 'like the Father,' when they must have known that for Origen it meant 'like but inferior to the Father,' while they were intent on affirming the Son's equality with the Father? Again, why should the Fathers be unready to accept a new meaning instead of the traditional meaning of this term, if they were ready to use this 'new' term itself instead of a traditional Biblical term? Again, if Hosius of Cordova influenced the adoption of the term, would he have failed to indicate to the Nicene Fathers that for him and the West it signified 'identity of substance'? Finally. to all this we might add Athanasius' declaration that it was the intention of the Nicene decree to go beyond mere likeness and touch identity (De decr. nic. syn. 20). SUMMARY In the New Testament the eternity and divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit were indicated clearly enough but nowhere formally declared. There was no formal doctrine about Christ's origin. nature, relation to the Father and to the Holy Spirit. There was no formal doctrine about a Triune God. But the elements for such a doctrine were there. In their somewhat infelicitous attempts to explain the Son's divine status and His relation to the Father by a two-stage theory of a preexistent Logos, the Apologists obscured if they did not deny the eternal personality and the eternal generation of the Son. Clement and Origen rejected the two-stage theory of the Apologists and maintained the eternal generation of the Son. But Origen, in his attempt to combine strict monotheism with a hierarchical order in the Trinity, ended up by making the Son and the Holy Spirit not precisely creatures but 'diminished gods,' inferior to the Father who alone was God in the strict sense. The stage was set for Arius. He saw in Scripture, the Apologists, and especially Origen two interwoven ideas, one that the Son was God, the other that the Son was subordinate and inferior to the Father in divinity. He saw a tension between these two ideas that the Father alone was God in the strict sense and that the Son was a 'diminished god' but not a creature, and he was not satisfied with the tension. He felt it must be resolved, and so he put a blunt question: Is the Son God or creature? He answered his question just as bluntly: The Son is not God. He is a perfect creature, not eternal but made by the Father out of nothing. And thus the subordinationist tendency in the Apologists and in Origen had reached full term. The question that Arius put and answered so bluntly was a 'live' question, of vital importance to the Christian and trinitarian faith of the Church and one that was deeply disturbing. The Church had to face up to the Arian question and go on record for or against the Arian answer. It did this at Nicea. Though there may be doubt about the understanding of 'consubstantial' at Nicea, there can be no doubt about the historical and dogmatic importance of the Council itself. For there the Church definitively rejected the answer that Arius gave to the question he put: Is the Son God or creature? The Council firmly rejected Arius' contention that the Son was a creature, not eternal, and made out of nothing. It firmly declared that He was begotten, not made, was born of the Father's substance. was true God from true God, was consubstantial with the Father. It did more. In the New Testament affirmations about the Son were largely functional and soteriological, and stressed what the Son is to us. Arians willingly recited these affirmations but read into them their own meaning. To preclude this Arian abuse of the Scripture affirmations Nicea transposed these Biblical affirmations into ontological formulas, and gathered the multiplicity of scriptural affirmations, titles, symbols, images, and predicates about the Son into a single affirmation that the Son is not made but born of the Father, true God from true God, and consubstantial with the Father. A definitive answer was given to the question of Arius not in the empirical categories of experience, the relational category of presence, or even the dynamic categories of power and function but in the ontological category of substance, which is a category of being. Nicaea did not describe; it defined. It defined what the Son is, in himself and in his relation to the one God the Father. The Son is from the Father in a singular, unshared way, begotten as Son,, not made as a creature. The Son is all that the Father is. except for the Name of Father. This is what homoousion means. This is what the Son is. . . . The Nicene definition ... formally established the statute of the ontological mentality within the Church. It was the precedent for the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, which resolved the issue of the internal constitution of Christ, the Son Incarnate, in the ontological categories of nature and person. . . . By its passage from the historical-existential categories of Scripture to the ontological or explanatory categories exhibited in the homoousion Nicaea sanctioned the principle of the development of doctrine . . . of growth in understanding of the primitive affirmations contained in the New Testament revelation." (The Triune God, Edmund J. Fortman, p 66-70)